Ralph Mangiarelli, Jr. v. Town of Johnston

Syllabus

The plaintiff, Ralph Mangiarelli, Jr., appealed from an order of the Superior Court denying his motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, the Town of Johnston (town) Joseph Chiodo, in his capacity as Treasurer for the town Arnold Vecchione, in his capacity as Public Works Director for the town and John Joe, alias. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that (1) the trial justice improperly tasked the jury with determining whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (2) the verdict form improperly set forth the plaintiff's burden of proof as a \preponderance of the evidence\ rather than a \fair preponderance of the evidence\ and (3) the trial justice erred by determining that expert testimony was required to support the plaintiff's claim that the angle of the curb created a dangerous condition. <br><br>The Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. First, the Court concluded that the trial justice did not improperly task the jury with determining the issue of duty because the verdict form established that the defendants owed the plaintiff a duty of care and contained only three questions, requiring the jury to answer the questions of breach, causation, and damages. The Court also determined that because the plaintiff did not object to the omission of the word \fair\ on the verdict form, the plaintiff had waived his second claim of error. Lastly, the Court concluded that the trial justice did not err in concluding that expert testimony was required to establish that the angle of the curb constituted a dangerous condition.<br><br>Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.<br><br>